Jesus was a great Rabi of peace and love, Unfortunate that his immitation followers have used his name as have (radical)muslims used mohamed as an excuse for their violence towards those who are different!

Excellent comment post Davivman. You nailed it.

cecilg

In case you missed it, I left you a post on Evangelicals take to Twitter to debate the doctrine of hell on Guest Voices.

Wish you well, talk to you later.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

cecilg

You wrote, "Thomas B: God has no plan or if God has a plan for humans it isn't working or it is a sadistic plan."

Seems as if you will be just as surprised as many of those that believe that Jesus Is Who He Is, that being God-Incarnate.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I know that the theme of this post is a popular one, but I find it to be dishonest to the source material. This theme is summarized in the belief that Jesus was a fine chap, but I really wish those pesky Christians would stop trying to turn him into a God. However when Christians talk about the divinity of Jesus, they are just repeating what Jesus claimed himself to be. All of that "magic" that you would like to ingore was in part performed to demonstrate that Jesus was who he said he was.

People have all sorts of reasons why they choose not to be Christian, but if you truly admire and respect Jesus in the way that you say that you do, it is dishonest to ignore who he claimed to be.

Thomas B: God has no plan or if God has a plan for humans it isn't working or it is a sadistic plan.

But I am trying my best to be ready for something, I know not what.

Have a great day.

Martha,

"Your thoughts?"

Your fictional idol is in the public domain; it has no trademark or copyright protection.

Martha Woodroof

You wrote, "What I want so badly is for all persons of faith to recognize the irrelevance of the magic of Jesus in the face of the mission of Jesus."

I suppose your statement concerning "the irrelevance of the magic of Jesus" could be referring to the "miracles" that Jesus performed, Jesus, Himself, downplayed the miracles and pointed out that it was what the miracles "pointed to" was what was important.

As far as the "mission of Jesus", are you referring to God's Plan which is for ALL to be, ultimately, with God in God's Kingdom and that God becoming One of us in the person of Jesus as being part of that Plan?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

This is a test. Can't get my post to go through

To Martha Woodroof: Like you, I am not a Christian, but like you, I am “so into Jesus”. As T Jefferson reportedly said, “I give allegiance to his teachings in preference to all others.”

But like Jefferson and many others, I am NOT into every teaching attributed to Jesus – only to the ones I think are authentic, and that of course opens the door to controversy. Here are two examples of alleged teachings I am not into:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”(NIV)

If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:32 (King James Version)

One statement attributed to Jesus that I aspire to but usually fail to follow (whether authentic or not) is

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks for a good article, but my view is that your sensible ideas will not be coming to fruition in the foreseeable future.

To Martha Woodroof: I, like you, am not a Christian, but like you, I am “so into Jesus”. As T Jefferson reportedly said, “I give allegiance to his teachings in preference to all others.”

But like Jefferson and many others, I am NOT into every teaching attributed to Jesus – only to the ones I think are authentic, and that of course opens the door to controversy. Here are two examples of alleged teachings I am not into:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”(NIV)

If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:32 (King James Version)

One statement attributed to Jesus that I aspire to but usually fail to follow (whether authentic or not) is

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks for a good article, but my view is that your sensible ideas will not be coming to fruition in the foreseeable future.

To Martha Woodroof: Like you, I am not a Christian, but like you, I am “so into Jesus”. As T Jefferson reportedly said, “I give allegiance to his teachings in preference to all others.”

But like Jefferson and many others, I am NOT into every teaching attributed to Jesus – only to the ones I think are authentic, and that of course opens the door to controversy. Here are two examples of alleged teachings I am not into:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”(NIV)

If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:32 (King James Version)

One statement attributed to Jesus that I aspire to but usually fail to follow (whether authentic or not) is

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks for a good article, but my view is that your sensible ideas will not be coming to fruition in the foreseeable future.

To Martha Woodroof: Like you, I am not a Christian, but like you, I am “so into Jesus”. As T Jefferson reportedly said, “I give allegiance to his teachings in preference to all others.”

But like Jefferson and many others, I am NOT into every teaching attributed to Jesus – only to the ones I think are authentic, and that of course opens the door to controversy. Here are two examples of alleged teachings I am not into:

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”(NIV)

If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:32 (King James Version)

One statement attributed to Jesus that I aspire to but usually fail to follow (whether authentic or not) is

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks for a good article, but my view is that your sensible ideas will not be coming to fruition in the foreseeable future.

Saying Jesus is the savior will not make it so. John 3:16 is a single attestation in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars to include three on the On Faith panel (Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) have concluded that it was not said by the historical Jesus. It was, they conclude, an addition to embellish the life of Jesus to gain converts/money to/for the cause.

See added commentary at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb350.htmland in Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.

You are also saying without realizing it that God is guilty of filicide. Please peruse the following.

(from Professor Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Saying Jesus is the savior will not make it so. John 3:16 is a single attestation in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars to include three on the On Faith panel (Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) have concluded that it was not said by the historical Jesus. It was, they conclude, an addition to embellish the life of Jesus to gain converts/money to/for the cause.

See added commentary at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus and in Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.

You also are sayin with realizing it that God is guilty of filicide. Please peruse the following.

(from Professor Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Please see first comment above...

And that, Martha, is what you started your article stating that you esteemed so much about Jesus. It was his remarkable, even perfect, example of how to live in a relationship with God. Only Jesus, because he IS Gods only begotten son, can live, love, and faithfully obey his Father in heaven in the way that you stated you admire so much. No one who trusts in their own ability to live right is living as Jesus lived. No one fully can. According to the Bible...

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son..." John 3:16-18

Thanks for the opportunity to comment and offer feedback. Your thoughts?

Dear Martha

As a Christian, there are few points in your article I deeply sympathize with.

To see more "doers" of the word versus "hearers" (see James) or as you put it "talkers" is a desire of mine too. There are many professing Christians that are not living according to the faith. To be more outwardly and may I add "others" focused as a professing follower of Jesus is also something we should see more of.

I read that you are a spiritual person and that you express a desire to see authenticity in the way a person behaves and believes. Your doubts and thoroughly stated objections regarding the deification of Jesus is something I used to agree with you on. That changed about 5 years ago. Until God changed my heart (Ezekiel 36: 26-32), I rejected much about Him in the same way. Your specific objection about Jesus' deity makes all the difference though. It IS the critical aspect of Jesus that must be understood for a right relationship with God. It is also essential in order have the correct "faith" in Jesus, as "faith" is defined and meant according to the Bible.

To have "faith" in Jesus could be also said to have "trust" in Jesus. Trust is a better translation, as it is more accurate than how faith is often used in todays terms.
To have faith/trust in Jesus that results in a right relationship with God, according to the Bible, is to trust that he IS the Son of God, who willingly came down from heaven to his people, lived a perfect life in order to satisfy the righteousness God required, took on the sin(s) of the world while he died on a cross, only to rise from death 3 days later and now lives eternally as God/man at the right hand of the Father in heaven. ....whew! Jesus took away our sin and transfers his perfect life and righteousness to those who believe, have faith/trust in him. That's the GOOD NEWS- the Gospel.

If Jesus is not the Son of God, if he is not diety, but rather just a man- then he accomplished nothing for his followers. Too many other "moral upstanding examples" anyone can choose to live like. Why follow Jesus?

God is not demanding moral behavior! He is demanding perfect righteousness and all of our desires in mind, body, and soul. That's a much greater demand than simply living morally, doing good deeds, or living outwardly. It is an impossible request! Only when we accept that Jesus satisfied this highest of standard FOR US- will we have the faith in Jesus that changes our nature, gives us a new birth, and thus causes us to "live like Jesus."

Continued on my second post....

I can see why that would sound attractive, Martha, but if you read Jesus' own words I'm afraid it isn't possible to both take away his deity and consider him someone worth following. The claims weren't invented by others, Jesus made them himself. And while there are indeed a very few who have claimed that portions of the New Testament haven't been maintained accurately through the years, the vast majority of scholars do support them. I hope those who chose to attack the beliefs of others in these comments will find healing from their hurts.

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus. (Professor JD Crossan is On Faith panelist and author of over 20 books on the historical Jesus).

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Jesus never existed. Try Osiris. He never existed either, so, he will serve as a nice change for Martha and the banned Yeal9.

Where would all the Abrahamics be without the great angelic con game supporting their myths?

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/ prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Where would all the Abrahamics without the great angelic con game supporting their myths?

It is called the Great Angelic Con:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

I very much like these thoughts, but it is not necessary to throw out the "mythos" if we spend time pondering the meaning to us personally. It doesn't have to be historically true for it to have great meaning to me The realm of history and the realm of Mythos are meant for different purposes. Last Christmas I put up my small little manger with the animals, shepherds, wise men and beautiful lights; its sits on my desk-top. Now I know that the story cannot be historically proven, but as I stare at the warm scene and ponder on it's meaning, still, it invokes rich inner meaning and feelings to me, that apply to my every day life. It says to me "great and wondrous things are born in humility." That has great meaning to me, I don't care about the historical 'facts.' All the stories, I ponder like this, and my definition of "miracles" is solely my own. Real faith takes serious mining!

Jesus is just alright with me.

It's his evangelical and Donohue Catholic followers with their theocon agendas who are, at the very least, annoying.

I was not raised in a Christian home, but became a believer at the age of 26. I appreciated your article on letting Jesus be Jesus. The question I see is which Jesus are we letting him be, the Jesus of the Bible, or the Jesus we want Him to be. If we look to Him as an example of how to live, how to be close to God, then wouldn't we be provoked to believe all that the Bible says about Him? Jesus was either who He said He was, or he was a madman. He claimed to be the Son of God. If we deny His deity, His claim to be the Son of God, if we say this is crazy, then how do we accept anything else he said as truth, or as beneficial to me as a person of faith. It would be foolish to listen to anything He said. He would just be another crazy religious zealot making outlandish claims about who he was, and who God is.

I appreciate the author's comments and agree that the church has made it more difficult to view Jesus because of all the magic and hyperbole associated with his story.

As for the commenters, I'm sorry that something in your life has left you so bitter that you feel the need to compensate for your own pain by lashing out to attack the faith of people you don't even know and who have never harmed you. If you are angry at people who have behaved badly in the name of Jesus, then attack the people who have behaved badly, not the man whose name they use.

A few words about the historical Jesus. The Gospels were written more than a generation after his death, so don't treat the quotes they attribute to him with the same credibility you'd ascribe to a modern newspaper reporter. The earliest New Testament writings were given by Paul, beginning five to 10 years after the crucifixion and continuing more than 20 years after the crucifixion. Hardly an eyewitness account.

But we have to admit that Something Happened to make Jesus' followers keep the faith and continue on. Don't be so quick to dismiss that phenomenon just because of some idiots who came centuries later.

Then there is this 21st century update on Christianity:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hit-ti-tes, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizz-azz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god
the "fil-icider".

Current RCC problems:

Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current problems:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospels being mostly fiction.